postiz-mcp

postiz_update_post_release_id

Reconcile a Postiz post with the actual platform release after a missing-content event by updating its release ID and optional release URL via PATCH.

Instructions

Update the releaseId (and optionally releaseURL) of a Postiz post via PATCH /api/posts/{id}/release-id. Use to reconcile a Postiz post with the actual platform-side release after a missing-content event. Requires enableWrite.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "postId": "<postId>",
      "releaseId": "<releaseId>"
    },
    "name": "postiz_update_post_release_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`postId`	Yes
`releaseId`	Yes
`releaseURL`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the HTTP method and the 'enableWrite' requirement, but lacks detail on side effects, idempotency, or error responses.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: first states action with endpoint, second gives use case and requirement. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description explains the use case but lacks information about return values or error handling. Given the simple update nature and no output schema, it is adequate but not thorough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds that releaseURL is optional, but does not explain formats or postId semantics. Baseline compensation is partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it updates the releaseId and optionally releaseURL of a Postiz post, with a specific endpoint given. This distinguishes it from sibling update tools like postiz_update_post_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a specific use case: reconciling a post after a missing-content event. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.